2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part V: The "Back to square one" Edition

Ok, so the players ask, ask mind you, for 13% and that leads to a drastic interpretation of them refusing to link a significant portion of salary to revenue. A $100 is significant to me, but is that how we're going to play it. I guess the players said "take it or leave it", must be why they can't bargain the number.

We can play the word game all day. Make the players out as some unmovable, stubborn mass. If the league is deadset on their proposal, they could have offered a genuine solution to the one player request. For some reason Gary has his head buried in the sand on this issue, Offer a capped escrow, offer a phased cap, offer a reduced escrow exemption. I'm tired of this being a bizarre concept to Gary who studied the NBA CBA so thoroughly. Yeah, the players are difficult. They of course have to agree in principle to the league deal before make whole is "negotiated". Back into a corner, remove leverage and then address "make whole"? Sure thing Mr. 24%.

One day they have to discuss the core issues before they work on the secondary. The next day you have to accept across the board demands on secondary issues before you can work on the number one concern. Moving target.

It's looking more and more like the players are going to learn another really painful lesson. Bettman is a fool for starting to negotiate so late and the players are fools for not recognizing that the owners hold all the power. The only leverage the players had was the owners' desire to avoid damage to league growth by pissing off fans with cancelled games. We're there now, so the players have no leverage left. They're basically cooked at this point, either they accept whatever the owners shovel to them or they can get by flipping burgers for a few months

It's looking more and more like the players are going to learn another really painful lesson. Bettman is a fool for starting to negotiate so late and the players are fools for not recognizing that the owners hold all the power. The only leverage the players had was the owners' desire to avoid damage to league growth by pissing off fans with cancelled games. We're there now, so the players have no leverage left. They're basically cooked at this point, either they accept whatever the owners shovel to them or they can get by flipping burgers for a few months

Nope.

Fehr and the Union didn't want to go to the table until late this Summer. Bettman was ready to get there towards the end of last season.

Any offer that does not tie the cap to revenues is kicking the hornets nest. Any offer that demands every penny of every individual underlying contract on time, with no deferral, no escrow and no risk is kicking the hornets nest.

We've been over and over, round and round on this. The moral "honor the individual contracts" stance is bullsheit. Everybody on both side went into all those deals with eyes wide open.

The NHL will never accept any deal of any kind that does not have some form of linkage (i.e. costs as a percentage of revenues). The PA's "new" offers were ALL fixed cost or significantly fixed cost. They knew this. They knew they were nonstarters. It was a joke to present them.

The moment the PA is willing to discuss a deal that is primarily based on tying the cap to revenues, the gears will engage and the process will kick into gear towards a settlement. Will that deal need to include some form of phasing down to 50/50 and/or make-whole? Of course. But the players need to indicate acceptance of the basic concept of linkage before there will be progress.

The irony of all this is that the PA's inflexibility on the existing contracts is THE main stumbling block right now and yet, if they don't move on them, then the first year of those deals will go away anyway and it'll be a moot point and a season cancelled for no gain.

Very well put. The PA should have proposed a deal that uses the owners' framework but doesn't set such harsh restrictions on ELCs and contract length. That's how they could have come away with a "win" in any real sense. From here, it's going to get worse. If Fehr thinks his guys will be okay with sitting out a season or two, he's got a very, very rude awakening coming.

EDIT: just read the NHLPA statement from Fehr today. Makes me sick to keep hearing this talk about "honoring existing contracts." The contracts, as they currently exist, are written to be based on the CBA they're played under. Changing the percentage and therefore the numbers is not tantamount to "not honoring" these contracts and every single player knew this when they signed and still knows it now.

Players are going to lose like they always do in these types of situations (owners mostly unprofitable and players take a bigger share than other leagues). The sooner they realize this, the sooner they'll get paid to play.

I don't think most people realize that the average NHL career is less than 6 years. You can argue that losing a season represents an average 17% loss in career earnings, on top of the pay cut they're going to have to bend over and take when they finally cave on the CBA

Game, set, match.

If I was a player I would be posting on every social media site out there how unhappy I was with Fehr. He needs to be pressured into making a deal.

Fehr and the Union didn't want to go to the table until late this Summer. Bettman was ready to get there towards the end of last season.

That's all well and good but opening with a 43% share offer by the NHL and sitting on it is no kind of good faith negotiating. He wanted to squeeze them and that's what he did, only it didn't have the intended consequences

That's all well and good but opening with a 43% share offer by the NHL and sitting on it is no kind of good faith negotiating. He wanted to squeeze them and that's what he did, only it didn't have the intended consequences

I actually think it was deliberate by the NHL to demonstrate what their share was the final year of this last CBA (57% players/43% owners). I get that it's a big disparity from what was, but how is 43% insulting to the players and not to the owners who actually lived with that % for a year?

To which the owners can say "we don't want to sign a new CBA." The latter obviously proceeds from the former since that's where we are.

I'm merely pointing out what will be required in order to get to the deal done.

I am not quite sure what the players are fighting for.
The concept of honoring contracts is noble. Of course the previous CBA had an escrow component so the contracts were never guaranteed.

What don't the owners call their bluff and offer honoring every dollar but linking the system to revenues. This will artifically supress contract values going forward.
I just read that there are 254 UFA next year and still 100 unsigned free agents. So owners could offer 53/52/50/50/etc. honoring every dollar which would in effect screw the 350+ players (roughly half the membership) looking for jobs.

That is the part I dont get. It seems like FEHR is willing to throw the third line grinder under the bus so Crosby and Ovie get every dime owed to them.

That's all well and good but opening with a 43% share offer by the NHL and sitting on it is no kind of good faith negotiating. He wanted to squeeze them and that's what he did, only it didn't have the intended consequences

Sitting on it? They've moved to a 50/50 split. Thats called negotiating.

I actually think it was deliberate by the NHL to demonstrate what their share was the final year of this last CBA (57% players/43% owners). I get that it's a big disparity from what was, but how is 43% insulting to the players and not to the owners who actually lived with that % for a year?

Bingo. I posted almost this exact thing a few pages back. The offer, while deemed a "smack in the face" was a calculated step. Showing how ridiculously skewed those percentages were. It was antagonistic, but very calculated.

Well, its hard when the players also MUST accept a 5 year contract limit just to have the conversation.

Until the NHL wants to compromise on those other issues, there will be a logjam.

Come now, those were clearly in play. "Tweaks" is a very vague term. Moving the limit from 5 up to 7 when the previous deal was uncapped is a tweak.

About 10 pages back RB proposed a whole bunch of "tweaks" that made a boatload of sense and, in conjunction with a modified make-whole, are the basis of a reasonable compromise of a CBA. They just need to get off their soapboxes and do it.

First step is for the players to engage on linkage and then you can proceed from there.

Come now, those were clearly in play. "Tweaks" is a very vague term. 5 up to 7 when the previous deal was unlimited is a tweak.

About 10 pages back RB proposed a whole bunch of "tweaks" that made a boatload of sense and, in conjunction with a modified make-whole, are the basis of a reasonable compromise of a CBA. They just need to get off their soapboxes and do it.

First step is for the players to engage on linkage and then you can proceed from there.

If you go with what BOTH Daly and Fehr have said, those tweaks only pertained to the "make whole" aspect of the deal.

The NHL was willing to discuss that, IF the players accepted all the contract conditions as well.

It's looking more and more like the players are going to learn another really painful lesson.

Unfortunately, this time the lesson will be visited upon the owners as well. They players are SO pi$$ed off, that they will not only miss this season, but the next one as well. Yes, they will heed Fehr. This is why they got him. If you think that they owners will simply sit and congradulate Bettman next October when they are not only missing the anciliary revenue that they missed out on this year again, but now they will also be faced with not having ANY revenue from a single sold ticket. And, oh, by the way, that television contract? You will now be staring at having to play they last two years for free.

Once this season goes, yes, the owners will be prepared to wait. But facing the above scenarios next October and November is not what they are prepared to do. Fehr will wait them out. And, while the playes will feel more pain, they are galvanized enough to force the owners to cut their own noses off. This is a poison pill. Fehr will push the owners to either come up with a solution or fold the league.

If I was a player I would be posting on every social media site out there how unhappy I was with Fehr. He needs to be pressured into making a deal.

You are greatly underestimating both Fehr and the union. They WILL listen to him. And he LISTENS to them. He is not Goodnow. There is nothing that is being done that he has not communicated to them or been approved by the players.